Paul Danove, «The Rhetoric of the Characterization of Jesus as the Son of Man and Christ in Mark», Vol. 84 (2003) 16-34

This article investigates the semantic and narrative rhetoric of Mark’s characterization of the Son of Man and the Christ and the contribution of the portrayal of the Son of Man to the portrayal of the Christ. An introductory discussion considers the role of repetition in characterization, the nature of semantic and narrative frames and their implications for describing the implied reader of Mark, and the rhetorical strategies apparent in characterization. The study of characterization investigates the manner in which the semantic and narrative rhetoric introduces and reinforces frequently discordant content concerning the Son of Man and Christ and then relates developments concerning the Son of Man to the Christ. The study concludes with a consideration of the narrative function of the characterizations of the Son of Man and Christ.

vocabulary, cultivation of contradictory content about the Christ occurs only covertly by structurally linking the contexts in which this designation appears to developments concerning the Son of Man in other contexts. This covert linkage is grounded in the narration of 8,27-33 which links the context concerning the Christ (8,27-30) to developments concerning the Son of Man (8,31-33). The former context presents Jesus’ question to the disciples, "But, who do you say that I am"? (8,29a) and Peter’s response, "You are the Christ" (8,29b). Jesus’ rebuke (e)pitima/w) of Peter and the other disciples and order that they not speak to anyone about him (8,30) negatively evaluates the disciples and, especially, Peter by directly aligning them with unclean spirits (1,25; 3,12; cf. 9,25) and the wind (4,39) which previously were rebuked.

        Jesus’ transition to a statement about the Son of Man’s necessary suffering, being rejected, being killed, and rising in 8,31 then frustrates the narrative audience’s cultivated expectation that the disciples’ negative evaluation in 8,30 will find its justification either within the preceding narrative context (8,27-29) or in an immediately following explanation³⁰. This frustration leaves the closure of 8,27-30 unresolved until such a justification is forthcoming. Peter’s response with a rebuke (e)pitima/w, 8,32) of Jesus imposes a very negative evaluation on Peter insofar as its assertion of Jesus’ alignment with unclean spirits and the wind contradicts both pre-existing and previously cultivated beliefs about Jesus. Peter’s response also recalls his previous negative evaluation in 8,30 and continues the suspension of the closure of 8,27-30. Jesus’ rebuke (e)pitima/w, 8,33) of Peter, which intensifies Peter’s negative evaluation, receives explanation through the o#ti (for) clause that identifies Peter’s erroneous thinking as the cause of his negative evaluation. Repetition of e)pitima/w with Jesus as agent in 8,30 and 8,33 and the focus on Peter in both contexts link Jesus’ two rebukes and so resolve the narrative development of 8,27-30 by identifying erroneous thinking about the Christ as the cause of the negative evaluation of the disciples and Peter in 8,30. The delay of closure until 8,33, however, insinuates into the narrative frame evoked